Before I forget, I think it's worth bringing attention to the way (most) Shiites are conducting themselves in Iraq. The U.S. wants the interim government that will take over at the end of June to be selected by caucuses. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and his followers want elections. They have protested peacefully for them. The U.S. has said there's no time to conduct elections properly, and al-Sistani has said, essentially, let's see what the U.N. says. In fact, "An influential Shiite Muslim cleric urged his followers Friday to refrain from the kind of mass protests witnessed in Iraq's two largest cities this month until a U.N. team determines whether nationwide elections are feasible."
It's interesting, isn't it: the U.S. starts an illegal war, ostensibly to give the Iraqis democracy; they are now demanding it ("Yes, yes to elections, no, no to appointment," the crowd chanted. ); and we're telling them they can't have it, because there isn't time, and we need to get out before our election. The U.N. has just agreed to assess the situation, so we'll see what happens.
If it turns out that elections can't be held by the time we want to get out, I have an idea: let the U.N. take over until elections can be held.
In any case, lets remember the behavior of those crazy Shiite zealots.
Posted by cradle at January 27, 2004 05:55 PMZeyad from http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/ says:
"The call for the elections upset me, because I see and also my friends, parents, neighbors and all the educated people realize that Iraq and Iraqis are not ready for direct elections right now, such great step must be done in calm and safe circumstances, dear Maury, I think we can see the actuality better than anyone on earth, simply because WE ARE IN IRAQ."
Also, are you in favor of an election that could put the people of Kurdistan, oppressed for a hundred years, and basically independent for 10 years, under the control of Shia Arabs?
What evidence do we have that the "UN" has any desire to "take over." What would that mean? What evidence is there that any country besides the US and the UK would put significant amounts (>20,000) troops on the ground?
Given the way the UN staff failed at security of their own HQ, and then cut and ran immediately after the car bomb attack, what evidence do we have that they won't botch the job which the US has already spent 520 US lives on?
Why do you think the US will be out of Iraq by November? American military forces will be there for a long time.
It certainly seems that many Iraqis want free elections. I think we should give them free elections, and any Iraqi who does not think the country is ready for free elections can simply not vote. Giving them free elections would send a message to the world that the US is truely helping Iraq to have freedom and democracy.
The UN would be more than willing to step in if they had the resources they needed, which we should supply, since we owe. With the UN running police, administration, and reconstruction, we would move the situation away from one where the US is a dangerous colonial state threatening peace in the region to one where the entire free world is contributing to a free and democratic Iraq.
I can't say for sure how badly the UN would botch the job that the US has already sent 520 Americans to their deaths for, but I can only assume that they would not do nearly as effective a job at siphoning vast sums of American taxpayer dollars into the pockets of Bush, Chaney, and their golf buddies, both directly and by subsidizing huge competition-free contracting revenue streams.
Posted by: at January 28, 2004 01:37 AM[ scene missing ]
Posted by: Andrew at January 28, 2004 01:21 PM
Zeyad from http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/ says:
"The call for the elections upset me, because I see and also my friends, parents, neighbors and all the educated people realize that Iraq and Iraqis are not ready for direct elections right now, such great step must be done in calm and safe circumstances, dear Maury, I think we can see the actuality better than anyone on earth, simply because WE ARE IN IRAQ."
It seems like quite a few people who are also IN IRAQ feel differently. In any case, I'm open to the possibility that elections before June 30, which is when the U.S. wants to hand over authority to an Iraqi government, may be premature. Even the Shiites think this might be the case. The question is, what's the solution: install a U.S. appointed government, which will forever cast doubt on the legitimicacy of future Iraqi regimes; or have elections as soon as it is possible to do them correctly.
Also, are you in favor of an election that could put the people of Kurdistan, oppressed for a hundred years, and basically independent for 10 years, under the control of Shia Arabs?
This is a separate issue. If Iraq is ever to have democracy (perhaps you feel it shouldn't), the question of how Kurds will be treated in a majority Shiite country remains. The current U.S. plan calls for eighteen regional caucuses, presumably to insure broad representation in the transition government. One possible solution would be to replace regional caucuses with regional elections.
What evidence do we have that the "UN" has any desire to "take over." What would that mean? What evidence is there that any country besides the US and the UK would put significant amounts (>20,000) troops on the ground?
Shortly after the war, Security Council members repeatedly suggested the U.N. be given authority over the political situation. What would it mean? It would mean the U.N., and not the U.S., would be making decisions about how, and to whom, authority would be transfered. The security situation could be handled either by U.N. troops, the majority of whom would be U.S. and U.K. troops (probably), or the U.S. could be given authority over the security force. The U.N. doesn't have any troops per se -- they're provided by member countries.
Given the way the UN staff failed at security of their own HQ, and then cut and ran immediately after the car bomb attack, what evidence do we have that they won't botch the job which the US has already spent 520 US lives on?
The U.S. could still provide security (see above). You say the U.N. "cut and [run]", but I wouldn't describe it as such. They were putting themselves in harms way in the service of an occupation over which they were given essentially no authority. The U.S. waged an illegal war in defiance of international law and refused to give authority of the political transition to the U.N. The U.N. had been snubbed repeatedly, and had no vested interest. So of course they left.
Why do you think the US will be out of Iraq by November? American military forces will be there for a long time.
Probably. But if you've been following the news, you'll know the one part of the transition plan the administration is adamant about is the June 30th deadline for handing over authority.
I still don't get the whole UN "secret sauce." The people of Iraq will view foreign soldiers as occupiers, regardless of helmet color.
Posted by: T* at January 28, 2004 09:08 PMI think the U.N. has more legitimacy in this situation than the U.S. It's telling that al-Sistani has said he'll accept the U.N. assessment of the feasibility of near-term elections, and not that of the U.S. But again, the issue is elections. If elections can't be done by June 30th, which is the latest the U.S. will wait, I'm suggesting the U.N. administer Iraq until elections can be properly conducted. Of course, I doubt the Bush administration is going to follow my advice.
Posted by: David at January 28, 2004 11:47 PM